Please refrain from making such comments. This is not constructive nor does it add to the discussion surrounding the proposal.
Whether you agree or not, this forum is not meant to go personal. We are all entitled to our opinions, even if you don’t agree with someone else, no need for such comments that are simply off-topic.
Thank you for the proposal.
There have been many counter-arguments to the proposal put forward already, which I broadly endorse.
In addition, speaking as a locked LP staker, to suddenly change the reward structure in such a way, when investors have committed significant capital locked for up to 1 year based on careful assessment of risk/reward and conviction in the project, would be an incredible breach of trust. The Merit Circle DAO would suffer significant reputational damage as a consequence.
Thus a no from me.
Si
No. This change will tank investor support for the ecosystem.
I will vote against this proposal for many of the reasons already stated above.
I agree with the spirit of this proposal, but I do not think it is fair to change terms on people locked in for 52 weeks. A contract is a contract.
I bought this token to support a team that wants to develop a new area in gaming industry.
I treat this the same way I treat a private seed or growth investment. I do not care about daily liquidity of the token, and so I do not want to subsidize it with dilution.
But I fully respect that other people invest with different goals, come in for short time speculation, and with liquidity constrains require constant trading. And so LPs get paid to bring in and support these investors. Same as an bank gets paid for market making and stabilization after an IPO.
I see the above as fair, if attracting these type of investors was the only way to get to raise +usd100m.
My question would be did the team do enough work in advance with its advisors for the fundraise to optimize the total fundraise amount vs the ongoing cost/dilution. I do hope such analysis is considered for future add-on fundraises.
I read all prior replies, apologies if my views above miss important technical aspects.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do really appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into considering both sides. I also understand the lockup on the contracts is not entirely fair to change after the lockup starts, without an opportunity to unlock or some compensatory element. I am with you in that I invested n a concept designed and intended to be like an early stage fund/startup, but was pretty offended at the rate they determined to dilute out investors vs liquidity providers. Let’s also be honest that the lockup choice wasnt forced on everyone s even an option before the price had become more than $3, which at the time was about what the circulating supply was worth on a fundamental basis given the amount raised and current yields on the assets it proposes to hold while MC invests in P2E assets etc, meaning that the “support for the price” they have all claimed about in repeated trolling posts is certainly proving to be a weak argument. Furthermore, any support has also clearly been insufficient to prevent a decline in excess of market and sector performance, so again, the argument about support is much less genuine. The reality of an LP position is that it has to support the role of an investment bank in stabilizing the IPO price, but I am with you in questioning the analysis done by the team(which as a DAO is all of our responsibilities to question and improve on). In case anyone is unclear on this, there are many people especially in Singapore that received allocations in the single digit cents as VCs, who also represent the “early supporters” and have been more than compensated in returns for their support which at these levels makes it pretty clear that “early support” isnt supportive of prices in either form longer term, whether it be VC or LP based in that both are being paid the entirety of the capital cost within a month of the “investment” while holders of the actual MC token that are staking or simply holding for long term investment are receiving nowhere near the level of dilution protection necessary to provide value stabilization or accretion of value to them. Im confident the future of DAOs includes balanced long-term and short-term price support, through most significantly the high performance of the entity itself, not through dilutive measures primarily, it is my hope that Merit Circle will also take a longer-term view towards value creation and distribution and lead by example.
I thank all those that gave actual thought to both sides if this issue and would encourage all those that claim to be able to “ensure the failure of an MIP” to think about how that reflects on the concept of a DAO, and how it undermines the Decentralized Autonomy argument, even if that person does control a significant portion of the vote.